Are MBT's becoming obsolete?

[red oct 2]

The Bradley's hull is a fat and juicy target and very easy to hit even for a WWII tank, not to mention that it can be penetrated from any direction with a medium caliber weapon. Why not use a low-profile hull like the M1 tank's?

Forget the LOSAT and the stingers, use ADATS. And a 20mm coax.

i think the bradley does fine. we haven't lost that many of them. there was one case where a RPG struck the hatch that covers the driver and killed him, but i doubt theres anything else that could have done any better in that kind of situation.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]i think the bradley does fine. we haven't lost that many of them. there was one case where a RPG struck the hatch that covers the driver and killed him, but i doubt theres anything else that could have done any better in that kind of situation.

Keep in mind that the Bradley does not face "real" opposition. It´s insurgents with outdated weapons that are fighting Bradleys right now. I´d bet it would look a lot different if the Bradley had to fight some actual vehicles of it´s class. The Bradley looks like a moving mountain when you see it´s height. Not especially revolutionary nor effective against other APC´s.

[hellfish6 7]

I would argue it's one of the best protected and best armed IFVs in the world today. It's only competition, I think, comes from the TOW-armed Warriors or the uparmored BMP-3.

[Ares1978 0]

I would argue it's one of the best protected and best armed IFVs in the world today.

Just curious: on what grounds?

[hellfish6 7]

It's battle record, even against conventional foes. M-1 tanks get a lot of the credit for the Battle Of 73 Easting in the first Gulf War, but a cavalry troop has 9 M-1s and 12 M-3s - the Bradleys did a good deal of the killing against dug in T-72s and BMPs.

Even beyond that, Brads have served exceptionally well everywhere they've been deployed. Granted, there haven't been many stand-up fights against conventional forces, but not many armies get the chance to do so. Besides the '91 Gulf War, when was the last time tanks and IFVs fought their equivalents from other countries? Maybe Lebanon in '82 or one of the Indian-Pakistani wars.

The fact is that the Bradley has served in several armed conflicts against conventional (GW1 and GW2) and non-conventional (Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, GW2) wars and has always done well - maybe even better than expected.

I don't know that there's an IFV in existence that could survive a hit from a 125mm tank round, but the Bradley has shown that it does well against most RPG rounds you'll find in the world today. Not many IFVs can say that.

[shinRaiden 0]

That's why there is so much flexibility in that recent Merkava designs. You can use them exclusively for 'classic' armor operations, or you can rearrange the configuration of some variants to throw a squad or med-evac in the back. Abrams can't do that. M1A2 Abrams got an extra m240 on the loader's hatch to complement the Commander's .50, and the coax. While it's not the same as Bradley pintle mounts or over-the-top on an AAV7, it helps. I'm not sure on the purportions, but it seems like the Merkava's barrel is set back much further than the Abrams to allow for tighter clearances.

Of course politics says "oh the humanity, armor on infantry". Well, when you have MANPAD's and shoulder-fired specials and roadblocks and anti-tank mines and such that can stop and destroy anything less than an MBT, and has a reasonable chance against MBT's using competent tactics, it's very much a fair fight.

[Ares1978 0]

It's battle record, even against conventional foes. M-1 tanks get a lot of the credit for the Battle Of 73 Easting in the first Gulf War, but a cavalry troop has 9 M-1s and 12 M-3s - the Bradleys did a good deal of the killing against dug in T-72s and BMPs.

Even beyond that, Brads have served exceptionally well everywhere they've been deployed. Granted, there haven't been many stand-up fights against conventional forces, but not many armies get the chance to do so. Besides the '91 Gulf War, when was the last time tanks and IFVs fought their equivalents from other countries? Maybe Lebanon in '82 or one of the Indian-Pakistani wars.

The fact is that the Bradley has served in several armed conflicts against conventional (GW1 and GW2) and non-conventional (Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, GW2) wars and has always done well - maybe even better than expected.

I don't know that there's an IFV in existence that could survive a hit from a 125mm tank round, but the Bradley has shown that it does well against most RPG rounds you'll find in the world today. Not many IFVs can say that.

What other (relatively modern) IFV's have even been in combat lately?

The Patria XA-series has an excellent record too (peacekeeping missions), but I would never claim that it is one of the best in its class. Not without cold, hard facts to back it up.

[hellfish6 7]

The BMP and BMD series in Chechnya have had a mixed record. I think their losses were due more to doctrine and training than actual capabilities, though. But, worldwide, I've seen lots of dead BMPs - Cote D'Ivoire, Angola, Libya, Iraq, etc. Protection-wise, though, both come up a little bit short on the Bradley (though their low profiles and very well sloped bows help). The BMP-3 is still having teething problems, from what I understand, and is not used in direct combat in Chechnya.

The Warrior has seen some action - Bosnia, Kosovo (?) and Iraq, but it's a bit underarmed, I think, with only a 30mm cannon. I don't know if the Milan or TOW variants are used by the UK. Firepower-wise, it comes up short against the Bradley.

The AMX-10P and Marder haven't seen any action, AFAIK. Maybe Bosnia?

I'm not saying the Bradley's the be-all-and-end-all of IFVs, but I'd pit a company of Brads against any other IFV in the world, all other things being equal, and expect to see the Brads come out on top.

Edit - if you're asking for statistics that prove the Brad is best, I'm not going to bother. This isn't meant to be a wholly serious conversation and we're not military professionals. But from what I've observed, I honestly believe the Bradley is the best IFV in service today.

[ran 0]

The AMX-10P and Marder haven't seen any action, AFAIK. Maybe Bosnia?

The 10P is in my eyes somewhat obsolete. I wouldn't mount one anymore like I did in the 80's. It's just weak, thin skinned and is well worth a VAB T20 in my eyes. It isn't much use if it's not revalorized soon with newer up to date systems and protective devices. I hope we'll get our VBCI quite fast to replace this old scrap of steel.

It has seen action in the Balkans: Bosnia as you pointed out but also Kosovo iirc by the way.

[EiZei 0]

Ah, the bradley. One of the better examples what happens when military contractors and military staff bureaucracy goes wrong. Its designers apparently tried to make it do everything ending up with a scout vehicle that is not mobile enough, little tank with not enough firepower and a troop carrier with ridiclously small space.

The 25mm cannon does not have enough penetration power. It is not surprising that pretty every new IFV uses calibers above 30mm. The missile launcher is located in a quite vulnerable position as it is the only way for the bradley to take on anything heavier than a BMP-1.

Not that I have been anywhere near a bradley in my whole life and lot of the nastier errors have been ironed out but I feel for the same money something LOT better could have been made.

[hellfish6 7]

That may be true, but what American project hasn't been wildly expensive and, on occasion, initially lackluster?

I think over time the Brad has become a very good weapon platform. If it took several billion dollars to get that way, well... in all honesty, the US can afford it. I appreciate that most other countries can't. It's a luxury that many don't have.

But remember, in 1981 (or '82?) the M-2 was the only IFV in the world with thermal sights, AFAIR, and you can't underestimate the value of that.

[BlackScorpion 0]

I saw a movie that was based on Bradley's designing... Took more than 20 years IIRC... There was this "bad guy" (played by the same actor who played Frasier) who apparently wanted it to go to production, while it (Bradley) was... Not finished. Very dangerous to the crew.

In the movie, not sure how realistic, the original Bradley looked like lowered and lenghtened M113. Well, you know the result...

[hellfish6 7]

I saw the movie, can't remember the name though. It was based on a true story.

Most weapons projects these days can take decades to design - the M-1 tank, for example, spawned out of the MBT-70 program of the late '60s and early '70s. The F-22 Raptor has been on the drawing boards since about 1980 and it is still not ready for production yet.

[Ares1978 0]

I wouldn't ever bet on a Bradley. It's an excellent target and it is nothing special when it comes to weapons, armor and mobility. There are a lot of designs out there that can easily beat the Bradley in all those areas and even more that are more or less equal.

Everything outside the area of "specs" can safely be ignored as long as the vehicles it is being compared to haven't been in the same kind of situations. The only thing that even comes close, are the tests performed by countries trying to select an IFV for their armed forces, and even in those instances, which vehicle is better always depends on geography, money and politics, as well as performance.

[red oct 2]

only thing i wana see done w/ the Bradley is for them to put a larger gun on it and maybe add some additional reactive armor. for the current tasks its facing it does just fine. w/ time it will get better so no sense is spending more billions on it for looking for a new one. that money would be more suited fixing up are lighter vehicles.

[llauma 0]

In my oppion it's just stupid to make an armored HMMWV.. In places where the armor is needed you should use a IFV/APC.

[red oct 2]

its not really stupid when you need a vehicle for patroling, shuttling troops, and providing escort to tanker trucks around streets that possibly hide IED's. those kinda tasks are not what a Bradley is intended for.

[Wilco 944]

its not really stupid when you need a vehicle for patroling, shuttling troops, and providing escort to tanker trucks around streets that possibly hide IED's. those kinda tasks are not what a Bradley is intended for.

Exactly, and humvees can manuever out of hot spots quickly. Why drag an IFV during a patrol which will slow down the column if attacked? Sure it has sufficient armor and firepower, but I believe a key to an ambush is to get out of it quickly before you decide counter-attack.

[red oct 2]

not only that but they are fuel hogs. and sending them out on patrols all day can put a lot of ware and strain on the parts requiring more repairs. and if things get a bit more hairy and the HMMWV's can't quite handle it, we can always send in some Strykers before deciding to send in the big guns. those vehicles have been doing pretty good as well.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

You want to put reactive armour on an IFV

[red oct 2]

You want to put reactive armour on an IFV

why not?

the Isrealies did it

http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-1-04/reactive-armor.htm

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

You want to put reactive armour on an IFV

why not?

the Isrealies did it

http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-1-04/reactive-armor.htm

The article doesn't state anywhere that the Israelis put reactive armour on their IFVs. It states that reactive armour was put on AFVs, it mentions Israeli M-60 and Centurion tanks, and mentions a Reactive Armour proposal for the M-2

Either way, its a daft idea.

[hellfish6 7]

I wouldn't ever bet on a Bradley. It's an excellent target and it is nothing special when it comes to weapons, armor and mobility. There are a lot of designs out there that can easily beat the Bradley in all those areas and even more that are more or less equal.

Everything outside the area of "specs" can safely be ignored as long as the vehicles it is being compared to haven't been in the same kind of situations. The only thing that even comes close, are the tests performed by countries trying to select an IFV for their armed forces, and even in those instances, which vehicle is better always depends on geography, money and politics, as well as performance.

What designs?

I'm not trying to swing a big American dick around here by saying we've got the best IFV, but we're one of the very few countries in the world who have used our IFVs in combat and used those experiences to improve them.

[ran 0]

You want to put reactive armour on an IFV

why not?

the Isrealies did it

http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-1-04/reactive-armor.htm

Why not ? Because the goal is not to kill or incapacitate nearby ally infantrymen (they aren't called IFV's for nothing).

The GIAT proposed a reactive armor set for the AMX10P, which has been quickly ruled out by the french army.

[Balschoiw 0]

Imagine reactive armour go off in crowded urban areas with inf and civillians nearby....

No good idea, imo.